Yet that's exactly what's likely to happen.

Justice Minister Kiri Allan says she will be making announcements on hate speech by the end of this year.

"I guarantee that I'll be introducing a law that I intend to have concluded and put into law by the next election."

What the law will entail remains to be seen.

Finlayson has some words of warning about the possibility of such legislation being passed.

"I am not confident the authorities would take a strong stand to prosecute only the most serious and obvious cases. They would probably kick for touch and leave it to the courts to decide."

He suggests the most effective way of rebutting positions you disagree with is to master the arguments of your opponents and engage in a robust and civil debate.

"May the best person win the argument," he says. "It is contrary to fundamental principles of freedom of expression and to a liberal democracy to have a law that could stop the full and frank exchange of views."

Bob McCoskrie of Family First is also concerned about the possibility of hate speech legislation being passed.

It's not something to be taken lightly, he indicates.

Rather, he says it's vital that families and faith communities understand what is really at stake with these proposals.

"Make no mistake - political activists and special interest groups will miss the important distinction between hate speech, and merely speech they hate, and end up using such laws as tools of political intimidation to punish opponents and shut down debate in the marketplace of ideas," McCoskrie says.

Freelance blogger and journalist Karl du Fresne is also concerned about the prospect of hate speech legislation. He cites advice from Jacob Mchangama, a Danish lawyer, human rights advocate and author who spoke at the Free Speech Union conference in Auckland last Saturday.

"One of his key points was that historically, free speech has been a vital tool for the oppressed," du Fresne reports.

However, du Fresne says he's disappointed that there were so few journalists at the conference.

One, the editor of a high-profile national publication, was there to observe rather than report, he says.

A freelancer, Yvonne van Dongen, told the conference about the extraordinary obstacles, excuses and deceptions she encountered despite her well-established credentials when she tried to get an article published about the free speech debate.

"No one who heard van Dongen's account of her travails ... could delude themselves that the mainstream media can be regarded as allies in the campaign for free speech," du Fresne says.

This perception was reinforced by the fact that although Jacob Mchangama was interviewed on RNZ by Kim Hill, not a word appeared in the mainstream media about the conference.

Source

• YouTube
• NZ Herald
• NZ Herald
• Blogspot

The Government is appealing a recent Court of Appeal decision which upheld Family First as a charity.

Bob McCoskrie, Family First's National Director says the case is not about his group.

"The attempt by the Government to deregister Family First is a watershed event, not just for Family First, but for the whole country," he says.

Over the past week, McCoskrie says Family First has been swamped with messages of support and with contributions to their Legal Fighting Fund.

The events leading to the appeal - which began yesterday and is expected to finish today - involved a series of judicial decisions.

It all began back in April 2013, when the Charities Board notified Family First that they were going to deregister it as a charity.

"The Board considers that the Trust's opinion(s)…. are fairly described as controversial in contemporary New Zealand society," the Board said.

"We challenged their decision in the High Court, and in 2015 the judge told the Charities Board to reconsider their decision," McCoskrie recalls.

The Court told the Board: "…Members of the Charities Board may personally disagree with the views of Family First, but at the same time recognise there is a legitimate analogy between its role and those organisations that have been recognised as charities."

McCoskrie says the Board informed them after their "reconsideration," that they would still proceed with deregistering their charitable status.

"So we went back to the High Court in 2018 to challenge their decision again. But that particular judge agreed with the Charities Commission. We did not accept the High Court's analysis or its conclusions and appealed to the Court of Appeal."

Family First won that battle in the Court of Appeal last year.

The Court's decision said: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other similar instruments, affirm a right to family life. That provides considerable support for the proposition that Family First's support of, education about, and advocacy for, the family and its related institution of marriage may, other things being equal, be charitable."

This week's head-to-head at the Supreme Court with the Government will be expensive for both parties, says McCoskrie.

Nonetheless, he says any charity has the right to represent a sector of the community.

"We're just asking for a level playing field. We have fought and will continue to fight this decision because of the threat it places on us but also on other charities and churches who hold what would be termed as conservative viewpoints, and our collective freedom to speak on behalf of our supporters in a civil society," McCoskrie says.

Source

• Supplied - Family First
• Image: Otago Daily Times

In a decision released on Thursday morning, the Court of Appeal set aside a Charities Registration Board decision in 2017 to deregister Family First as a charity.

"This decision is a win for the freedom of speech and belief in New Zealand," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First New Zealand.

"The attempt by the Charities Board to deregister Family First would have been a watershed, not just for Family First, but for the whole country," McCoskrie said.

"Family First appealed this decision because of the threat it placed on us and other charities and our collective freedom to speak on behalf of our supporters in a civil society," he said.

"An overly restrictive or narrow view of what is in the public benefit is likely to be of concern to all charities, many of which have a certain emphasis or point of view."

During the appeal, Family First New Zealand's lawyer, Peter McKenzie QC, said the organisation had a "purpose of advancing education or a purpose" which was for the public benefit.

"Family First's activities directed towards promoting life are closely related to the welfare of the family and should be understood as being merely ancillary to its charitable purpose of promoting the family," McKenzie said.

The organisation's activities "serve to strengthen family life, encourage stability and promote values in society, arguing all purposes are of benefit to the community and should be regarded as charitable by analogy to the mental and moral improvement cases."

Through a lawyer, the Attorney-General argued Family First had not established its principal purpose - advocacy on behalf of the "traditional family" was a public benefit or "sufficiently analogous to any purpose previously accepted as charitable."

Source

• scoop.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: stuff.co.nz

When lodging the original bill, Labour MP Ginny Anderson said, "I think [abortion] would be [grounds], but I would like this Member's Bill to pass."

"We absolutely support this bill, but requested that it be extended to cover post-abortive women. That's because we believe that all women matter. And that all loss should count.

"Just as the loss and grief experienced by parents as a result of miscarriage absolutely deserve recognition, so too does the loss and grief resulting from abortion which is experienced by many women.

"Women are being persuaded to believe that abortion is not a loss of life - but that is certainly not the experience of many post-abortive women, and their loss should not be ignored," says Marina Young, founder of the Buttons Project and spokesperson for Family First NZ.

"Bereavement leave for both miscarriages - often referred to by medical specialists as ‘spontaneous abortion - and abortions would allow women the opportunity to seek the support and counselling that they may need at this time.

"We should never under-estimate the grief and loss that a woman personally experiences from either a miscarriage or an abortion."

"Their grief and loss need to be validated too, because there can be many factors that surround one's decision to have an abortion. Post abortive women need to know that it is okay to seek help and take time to grieve, and to allow their body to heal. Because all women matter."

"I ask that we walk gently in people's lives, as we do not know the journey that they have been on to lead them to where they are at this moment, and allow post-abortive women's grief and loss to be acknowledged."

Family First is asking MPs to consider introducing an SOP to this effect.

Source:

• Family First
• Family First advocates for families. It seeks to promote strong families, marriage, and the value of life, based on principles that have benefited New Zealand for generations.

Just under 8% support the Government bill.

The in-depth analysis of a random sample of 1,000 submissions by an independent researcher found that 90.6% of submissions were opposed. This means that over 18,000 submissions in total rejected the abortion bill, compared to less than 2,000 in support. Almost 2/3rds of all individual submitters were women. Medical doctors, nurses and healthcare workers who submitted as individuals were also about 90% opposed. Read more

With the acceptance of the amendment requiring a referendum, the Bill is likely to pass the third reading in November.

However, it will only become law if it is approved in a binding referendum to be held in conjunction with the 2020 general election.

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ is confident that this will happen.

"It is one thing to say yes to a nice-sounding phrase around having ‘choice'", he says.

"But when voters examine the pitfalls and dangers of the bill that may be passed next month, they will quickly realise that assisted suicide is not a simple yes-no answer."

McCoskrie points to a survey in April that showed that most New Zealanders balk in their support of assisted dying when questioned about specific aspects of euthanasia.

The survey, commissioned by Euthanasia-Free NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, comes ahead of the bill's second reading in Parliament on May 22.

The poll suggested the gap in public opinion between those who support and oppose was narrowing.

In a Newsroom article Sam Sachdeva says for the Bill sponsor David Seymour, the prime minister Jacinda Ardern and some other euthanasia supporters, a referendum is an undesirable but necessary evil to get the legislation across the line.

Proponents of the bill point to healthy levels of public support for reform, with upwards of 70 per cent in favour of legalising some form of assisting dying in most polls.

"That may explain why Seymour sees a referendum as an acceptable compromise," says Sachdeva.

"But recent trends for the other referendum topic which the End of Life Choice Bill will likely feature alongside next year would caution against any complacency."

Sachdeva suspects referendum on euthanasia and the one on cannabis, and the sentiment they stir up are almost certain to bleed into each other too."

Source:

• scoop.co.nz
• newsroom.co.nz
• Image: france24.com

"Currently it's only available for exceptional circumstances, danger to the life and health of the mother, or the child," said McCoskrie

"But in this bill after 20 weeks gestation, a baby could be aborted as long as the practitioner who is going to perform the abortion, and immediately there's a conflict of interest, considers it appropriate in the circumstances."

He said he wanted to further restrict the pre-existing legislation from 20 weeks to the point where there is a foetal heartbeat.

But in her submission, `ALRANZ Abortion Rights Aotearoa president Terry Bellamak said such a provision would give people almost no chance to get an abortion in most cases.

"At six weeks an embryo does not have a heart, what is does have is an electrical pulse in the part that's going to eventually develop into a heart, that can be detected at six weeks and that's before most people even know that they're pregnant."

There were about 13,000 abortions performed in New Zealand last year, according to Statistics New Zealand.

57 of those took place after 20 weeks' pregnancy.

Under the existing law, those seeking an abortion require legal certification from two consultants that having a child would damage their physical or mental health.

There are even more stringent provisions after 20 weeks.

Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ) and the Family First were the only ones to make submissions on Tuesday.

The parliamentary Abortion Legislation Select Committee is taking submissions on the proposed Abortion Legislation Bill.

It will report back in February.

The bill passed its first reading, 94 in favour 23 against.

Source

• rnz.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• tvnz.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: tvnz.co.nz

The hearing at the High Court in Wellington this week is the second appeal after the Charities Board ruled in 2013 and again in 2017 that Family First be removed from the charities register.

When Family First appealed the 2013 decision, the High Court ordered the board to reconsider, which it did in 2017, again concluding the group should be removed.

This week Peter McKenzie QC, acting for Family First, said that even if a group's causes were unpopular, that shouldn't stop them being classified as a charity.

While Family First admits to promoting "traditional" values, it has now dropped the claim to religious charitable status.

"This is not a charity formed for religious purposes," McKenzie said.

"It is simply formed with a statement of purpose relating to faith, but it is not religious in purpose."

He argued that its activities seek to benefit all forms of families.

Justice Simon France questioned whether the research Family First conducted was "persuasion under the guise of research", where the authors of research papers chose evidence to reflect the views they already held.

McKenzie said that their research aimed to benefit everyone and promote debate.

The Charities Board has not yet made its submissions to the High Court.

The hearing continues.

The first time the Charities Registration Board attempted to deregister Family First, it said the organisation did not "advance exclusively charitable purposes".

But the High Court ordered the Board to take a second look at the issue in 2015, after Greenpeace had taken the issue to the Supreme Court to defend its own charitable status.

In the Greenpeace case, the Supreme Court ruled that groups can register as charities - even if they have a political purpose.

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• Image: familyfirst.org.nz

Family First goes to court over second deregistration decision]]> 106777 https://cathnews.co.nz/2018/04/16/chief-censor-new-zealand-needs-tackle-porn-problems/ Mon, 16 Apr 2018 07:52:45 +0000 https://cathnews.co.nz/?p=106086 The chief censor says New Zealand needs to take a societal approach to tackling the pervasive effects of porn, including further regulation. Family First national director Bob McCoskrie is calling for an expert panel to better understand the breadth and nature of the health and social issues created by pornography, and how to tackle it. Continue reading

The ministry was responding to a request from the Government and Administration Select Committee for a written submission on a petition it is considering which was presented in June 2017 by Family First's Bob McCoskrie.

The petition containing 22,334 signatures requests "that an expert panel be appointed to investigate the public health effects and societal harms of pornography to both children and adults, and to make policy recommendations to Parliament."

The Ministry has now submitted a research proposal for the consideration of the cross-government Sexual Violence Prevention Advisory Board.

The Ministry's Service Commission acting director, Keriana Brooking, says it wants to understand the scope and amount of pornography usage by New Zealanders, as well as the issues encountered by schools, young people and health providers.

In its submission, the Ministry states that violence towards women and girls is depicted in 80% of online content.

"This has a variety of harmful impacts on children and young people's sexual expectations, attitudes and behaviour.

"European research showed an association between regular viewing of pornography and initiation of sexual violence."

Australian gender and violence research Associate Professor, Michael Flood, has been recently been quoted as saying "If we're genuinely concerned about sexual harassment and abuse, whether at work or on campus or in school, then we have to address pornography."

The ministry in its submission, however, pointed out that Flood has also said that simplistic deterministic claims about the effects of viewing pornography were unhelpful.

He said the effect varies depending on the amount and nature of pornography used, and characteristics of the viewer.

Flood said a broader focus on social and public health effects of pornography would be more useful.

Source

• tvnz.co.nz
• echildhood.org
• familyfirst.org.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• familyfirst.org.nz
• Image: familyfirst

The Board's decision was made public in August. It was the second time it has tried to deregister the group.

Board chairman Roger Holmes Miller said the Board considered that Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family. That cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable."

In a media release on 26 September, Family First announced it has lodged an appeal in Wellington's High Court to fight this deregistration.

In 2013, the Board made the decision to remove Family First from the Charities Register because it did not advance exclusively charitable purposes.

Family First appealed that decision to the High Court.

In 2015, Justice David Collins directed the Board to reconsider its decision in light of the 2014 Supreme Court Greenpeace judgment

In 2010, Greenpeace took the Charities Commission to the High Court to challenge the dismissal of its application for charity status. The court found its activities were more political than educational, and therefore not charitable.

But that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in November 2012, allowing Greenpeace to apply for re-registration.

Collins told the Charities Registration Board - "...Members of the Board may personally disagree with the views of Family First, but at the same time recognise there is a legitimate analogy between its role and those organisations that have been recognised as charities."

Read Family First media release

Source

• Stuff
• Newshub
• New Zealand Herald
• Image: Stuff.co.nz

But the group is not going down without a fight, saying it will argue the decision in the High Court.

The decision by the Charities Registration Board was made public on Monday. It is the second time the board has tried to deregister the group. Continue reading

The group first heard of another move to of deregister it through a report in the New Zealand Herald.

When asked by Family First, the Charities Registration Board said it would neither confirm nor deny the report.

The New Zealand Herald also reported that a Department of Internal Affairs spokesperson said the department couldn't confirm or deny any decision to deregister before speaking with Family First.

"We can't make any comment while this process is underway but a final decision will be made by the independent Charities Registration Board."

The spokesperson said Family First would remain a registered charity while any court action was underway.

"The Charities Board may hope that Family First will fold its tent and quietly retreat. We won't be," said McCoskrie.

The group was first notified by the Charities Registration Board in 2013 that its charitable status was in danger.

That was because the group advocated a controversial point of view, that was seen as lobbying for a political purpose.

The decision was challenged in court, and in 2015 the High Court ordered the Board to reconsider its decision.

The High Court decision in 2015 said "….Members of the Charities Board may personally disagree with the views of Family First, but at the same time recognise there is a legitimate analogy between its role and those organisations that have been recognised as charities."

McCoskrie said Family First has also passed two ‘audits' - one as recently as 2010. - and has made no change to the nature of their operations over the eleven years of its existence.

Official documents received by Family First NZ show that just one complaint was made against Family First and was lodged on the day that the organisation presented a petition to Parliament on behalf of almost 50,000 New Zealanders calling on politicians to reject the bill to redefine marriage.

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• familyfirst.org.nz
• Image: teara.govt.nz

He was speaking after a majority report from Parliament's justice and electoral committee rejected a petition seeking to change the law.

Read Right to Life press release

The petitioners wanted parental notification to be a requirement before some one under the age of 16 could have an abortion

At present, those aged under 16 are able to have information restricted from anyone if its deemed "The disclosure of that information would be contrary to that individual's interests", according to section 29 (1)(d) of the privacy act 1993.

The report says it was best if a young woman who seeks an abortion had the full support of her parents. But it should not be mandatory to tell them.

But McCroskie believes this decision goes against the wishes of most parents. He criticised the committee for refusing to hear submissions from parent or family groups such as Family First and instead relying only on medical and privacy experts.

NZ First and the Maori party had a minority view, saying parents should be informed unless a health professional decided there was a risk of harm to the child in disclosing it.

The abortion law reform association said it was the right decision not to make it mandatory. President Tony Bellamak said it would have put some young women at harm."

"Mandatory reporting would increase the fear and stress on young people who are already in a vulnerable position."

Read press release from Abortion Law Reform Assocaition

Stratford mother Hillary Kieft organised the petition. Her 15-year-old daughter had an abortion without her parents knowing.

Kieft told the justice and electoral select committee it was not until after her daughter attempted suicide a year later in 2010 that the Kiefts learned their daughter's boarding school arranged for her to have an abortion.

About 60 women under 16 had abortions each year and of those, only about 10 did not tell their parents.

Source

• newstalkzb.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: desiringgod.org

Her views are expressed a report Child Poverty and Family Structure that she has written for Family First, published Monday.

Mitchell says child poverty is consistently blamed on unemployment, low wages, high housing costs and inadequate social security benefits.

Little attention has been given to family structure.

"But if there is to be any political will to solve child poverty the issue has to be confronted."

Mitchell says rapidly changing family structure has contributed significantly to increasing income inequality.

She says it is not the intention of her paper to explore at length why marriage has fallen out of favour with most social science academics and policy-makers.

"The aim has been to show that marriage provides the best economic environment for
raising children," she says.

Mitchell argues that "The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible."

Who is Lindsay Mitchell?

Her blogsite says she has been researching and commenting on welfare since 2001.

Many of her articles have been published in mainstream media and she has appeared on radio,tv and before select committees discussing issues relating to welfare.

She is also an artist who works under commission and exhibits at Wellington, New Zealand, galleries.

The report is endorsed by Dr Michael Bassset a former Labour minister of health, Dr Stuart Birks, a Fellow of the Law and Economics Association of New Zealand, and Dr Don Brash, former Governor of the Reserve Bank and former leader of the National Party and the Act party.

Media Response

• Family First research 'high school level' statistics, academic says (Stuff.co.nz)
• Family First blames child poverty on divorce and single parents (NZ Herald)
• Lobby group Family First blames unmarried couples for child poverty (Stuff.co.nz)

Source

• familyfirst.org.nz
• familyfirst.org.nz
• blogger.com
• Image: familyfirst.org.nz

While family Planning say, "the general idea is to have it before it's needed," they say caution must be exercised.

"There's no minimal age, but there are cautions so I suppose that anybody who is under 16 even we just want to think twice about, and under 14 in particular," says Family Planning national medical advisor Dr Christine Roke.

"And if they happen to be under 12 we want to be working out why we would be not reporting them if they're having sex at that sort of age."

Family First director Bob McCoskrie said parents need to think about the messages they are sending to their child before giving them contraception.

"By putting people on contraception you're sending an underlying message that you're expecting them to be sexually involved.

"It would be better to talk to them about good reasons to wait, and the consequences of not waiting."

Putting your child on contraception prematurely is "a bit like running across a busy road - do we say to our kids 'don't run across a busy road' or do we say 'look here's a helmet, that might make you a little bit safer'."

As a father of three teenagers, McCoskrie was aware that every family will be different. Values, maturity and "realism" should be taken into account.

A total of 3546 teenagers gave birth in 2013, making up 5.9 per cent of total births - almost a two point decrease since 2006.

About a quarter of New Zealand secondary school students were sexually active, according to a University of Auckland survey in 2012.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• Image: s.yimg.com

Bob McCoskrie told Radio NZ this morning that Family First had wanted censors to reinstate the book's R14 rating, which had been removed last month, and require that the book carry a warning sticker. Continue reading

On 30 June Justice Collins ruled that Family First New Zealand's advocacy of the traditional family makes it similar to "organisations that have advocated for the ‘mental and moral improvement' of society" - that is, one of the classic types of charitable activity.

Family First was granted charitable status by the then Charities Commission in May 2007.

It was served a notice of deregistration by the Charities Board, which replaced the commission during the run-up to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in April 2013.

The Charities Board confirmed its decision to deregister Family First two days before the gay marriage law was passed.

Family First believes the juxtaposition of events makes it clear that their public campaign to preserve traditional marriage was the deciding factor in the Board's decision.

The decision from the High Court allows an appeal by Family First New Zealand against its deregistration, and orders the Charities Board to reconsider its move against the group.

It follows a similar appeal won by Greenpeace NZ last August after the Charities Board ruled its purposes, like those of the family advocates, primarily "political" rather than "charitable".

However, a majority of the Supreme Court in the Greenpeace case ruled that an organisation with charitable purposes could also have political purposes, depending on the objectives being advocated and the means used to promote those objectives.

Family First New Zealand's national director Bob McCoskrie says, "This decision is a victory for the many charitable groups - both registered, deregistered and wanting to be registered - who advocate for their causes, beliefs, and supporters and often have to engage in political activity, not always through choice but through necessity."

"It is a victory for open robust debate on issues that affect families."

Source

• mercatornet.com
• Image: familyfirst.org.nz

Family First is appealing a decision the Charities Registration Board made to de-register it in 2013.

The group said its opposition to gay marriage was the reason Charities Services wanted to deregister it.

The Charities Registration Board said Family First's main purpose was to promote "particular points of view about family life" and the lobby group did not advance religion or education, nor promote a benefit to all New Zealanders, as the law required charities to do.

Family First said today nothing had changed since it was allowed to keep its status as a charity five years ago. Read more

Family First is appealing the decision and it will be heard in the High Court at Wellington early next year.

The group was advised in 2013 the Charities Commission intended to deregister the charity, citing Family First's traditional view of marriage being one man and one woman as one of the reasons.

"Family First gained approval as a charity eight years ago, has also passed two ‘audits' - one as recently as 2010 - and have made no change to the nature of our operations," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

"It appears that only the opinion of the Commission has changed," he said.

The group had hoped the issue would be resolved after a Supreme Court ruling in favour of Greenpeace in August.

The court ruled that Charities Act didn't limit advocacy from a charity unless it was no more than ancillary to its charitable purpose, and also found that a political purpose could also be a charitable one.

Charities Services is arguing the issue is about public benefit.

The Board's position is that Family First's main purpose is to promote particular points of view about family life.

The say that under the Act promotion of a controversial point of view is a political purpose.

It says that Family First does not advance religion or education, nor promote a benefit to all New Zealanders as determined by the Act.

"When a group who promotes the natural family as a fundamental social unit is deemed of 'no public benefit', you know a country is in deep trouble," say McCoskrie.

Source

• 3news
• charities.govt.nz
• Family First
• Image: Screenshot 3news